4 ms·

That's cute, but the law also forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from committing violent crimes, which is what we're actually talking about.

by mjolk 10y ago

yoo1I 10y ago
I'll try with an example: In Europe currently they're housing many refugees in very crowded shelters, where by the sheer concentration of people, arguments and violent conflict are more likely to break out. This has has little to do with what kind of people you put in this housing, and a lot more with, among other things, the absence of any space for people to retreat back to. The problem there isn't one of personal character, which you are trying to make it, but living conditions. My argument is, that similar dynamics are at play at a larger scale. And you won't be able to fix those problems by trying to stay blind to that and just try to look at people individually.
- mjolk 10y ago
  You're coloring outside of the lines. We're talking about policing crime in San Francisco, USA and not the living conditions and behaviors of economic migrants and refugees in Europe.
  - yoo1I 10y ago
    If you're really unable to see how one easily understandable, concrete example can serve as an illustration of a generally more complex instance of a related problem, then I don't think this conversation is going to get us anywhere. I hope you have a crime-free day.
    - mjolk 10y ago
      You've repeatedly fallen back to a wider position; you're not giving "concrete examples." You're blowing the discussion out of scope (trying to drag in something happening 6000 miles away with a totally different context) -- crime in San Francisco is not closely related to cultural differences, self- and by-policy segregation, and fear of policing/censorship happening in Europe. I wish you the best as well.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
threatofrain 10y ago
A more explicit phrasing of the argument may be that structural explanations better explain a phenomena than unique individual factors, and that the "unique" individual factors might not be that unique. So what you end up punishing is (personal factors) x (structural factors), but we don't get to know how much each weigh. If we're using punishment or removal of a human from society as a way of getting rid of bad social phenomena rooted in bad personal factors, then it's in our interest to punish uniquely bad personal factors, or else common personal factors interacting with a bad situation will continue to output bad social phenomena. Additionally, structural fixes seem to me like lower-hanging policy fruit than throwing a person in jail and subjecting them to severe financial disadvantage. Society's fixes for individual behavior are crude, and quality human resources are extremely finite and being spent elsewhere. But for our emotional sense of justice we look for the high-hanging fruits first. And let's say among the bad personal factors population there are gradients of badness. Why do we seek to irritate that badness by exacerbating structural factors of crime, i.e., by throwing them into an awfully managed and abusive system where they don't get real sustained access to professionals, and why do we financially impair them?

That's cute, but the law also forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from committing violent crimes, which is what we're actually talking about.

by mjolk 10y ago

That's cute, but the law also forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from committing violent crimes, which is what we're actually talking about.

yoo1I 10y ago

I'll try with an example: In Europe currently they're housing many refugees in very crowded shelters, where by the sheer concentration of people, arguments and violent conflict are more likely to break out. This has has little to do with what kind of people you put in this housing, and a lot more with, among other things, the absence of any space for people to retreat back to. The problem there isn't one of personal character, which you are trying to make it, but living conditions. My argument is, that similar dynamics are at play at a larger scale. And you won't be able to fix those problems by trying to stay blind to that and just try to look at people individually.

mjolk 10y ago
You're coloring outside of the lines. We're talking about policing crime in San Francisco, USA and not the living conditions and behaviors of economic migrants and refugees in Europe.
- yoo1I 10y ago
  If you're really unable to see how one easily understandable, concrete example can serve as an illustration of a generally more complex instance of a related problem, then I don't think this conversation is going to get us anywhere. I hope you have a crime-free day.
  - mjolk 10y ago
    You've repeatedly fallen back to a wider position; you're not giving "concrete examples." You're blowing the discussion out of scope (trying to drag in something happening 6000 miles away with a totally different context) -- crime in San Francisco is not closely related to cultural differences, self- and by-policy segregation, and fear of policing/censorship happening in Europe. I wish you the best as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

threatofrain 10y ago

A more explicit phrasing of the argument may be that structural explanations better explain a phenomena than unique individual factors, and that the "unique" individual factors might not be that unique. So what you end up punishing is (personal factors) x (structural factors), but we don't get to know how much each weigh. If we're using punishment or removal of a human from society as a way of getting rid of bad social phenomena rooted in bad personal factors, then it's in our interest to punish uniquely bad personal factors, or else common personal factors interacting with a bad situation will continue to output bad social phenomena. Additionally, structural fixes seem to me like lower-hanging policy fruit than throwing a person in jail and subjecting them to severe financial disadvantage. Society's fixes for individual behavior are crude, and quality human resources are extremely finite and being spent elsewhere. But for our emotional sense of justice we look for the high-hanging fruits first. And let's say among the bad personal factors population there are gradients of badness. Why do we seek to irritate that badness by exacerbating structural factors of crime, i.e., by throwing them into an awfully managed and abusive system where they don't get real sustained access to professionals, and why do we financially impair them?